The Linear Reliability Channel

Alexander Mariona; Ken R. Duffy; Muriel M\'edard

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 35 references

The Linear Reliability Channel

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The linear reliability channel makes soft-decision ML decoding exactly analyzable, and explicit error exponents show soft decisions strictly outperform hard decisions at every code rate.

desk verdict Genuinely new discrete channel with exact ML exponents, but the abstract's claim that it approximates continuous-noise channels at high variance is not proven and looks wrong as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08079 v1 pith:VLALCOE2 submitted 2025-09-09 cs.IT math.IT

Alexander Mariona , Ken R. Duffy , Muriel Médard This is my paper

classification cs.ITmath.IT MSC 94A1594A1760F1094B35

keywords linearreliabilitychannelsoft-decisiondecodingerrorexponentsguessworklargedeviationslogisticweightmaximumlikelihoodrandomcodes

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces a discrete channel model, the linear reliability channel (LRC), in which the soft information available to a decoder is exactly the rank ordering of per-bit reliabilities. The motivation is that for common continuous-noise channels at high noise variance, sorted reliability magnitudes look approximately linear, so the LRC is offered as a faithful discrete proxy for that regime. On the LRC, the paper shows that hard- and soft-decision maximum-likelihood decoding reduce to simple guessing algorithms, derives large-deviation rate functions for the number of guesses, and turns these into explicit error and success exponents for random codes. The headline result is quantitative: soft-decision decoding strictly outperforms hard-decision decoding at every code rate, with the largest gap at intermediate noise levels. If the approximation is right, the LRC provides a clean benchmark for real soft-decision algorithms and a new statistical object, the logistic weight, for code design.

What carries the argument

The LRC itself is the central object: a uniformly random permutation τ orders the bit reliabilities exactly as βτ(i)/n, so the soft information is combinatorial rather than metric. Two statistics carry the decoding analysis: the logistic weight w_τ(x)=Σ_{i:τ(x)_i=1} i, the soft-decision type statistic, and the Hamming weight, the hard-decision type statistic. The analytic workhorse is the large-deviations guesswork framework: the scaled cumulant generating functions of the optimal guessing processes are expressed through Rényi entropy rates, and their Legendre transforms give rate functions. A random-code large-deviations channel coding theorem then converts those rate functions into the err

What would settle it

Simulate a binary-input channel with normal or logistic noise at large variance, sort the absolute LLRs of length-n blocks, and compare the empirical spacings of the initial order statistics with the LRC's exactly linear spacings β/n for a β fitted from the first spacing. If the spacings diverge systematically from constant as σ grows, over the index range where the sorted values concentrate, the approximation claim would fail; the gap would be expected because Theorem 5 controls only the interval |l| ≤ O(σ^{-3/2}), while the relevant quantiles sit at l = Θ(1/σ).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper introduces the linear reliability channel (LRC), where each channel use draws a uniformly random permutation τ and bit i flips with probability e^{-βτ(i)/n}/(1+e^{-βτ(i)/n}); the LLR magnitude of bit i is exactly βτ(i)/n, so the soft information is just the permutation. In this model, guessing noise patterns in increasing logistic weight is the soft-decision ML decoder and guessing by Hamming weight is the hard-decision ML decoder. The paper computes scaled cumulant generating functions for the optimal guessing processes, proves large-deviation rate functions for both decoders, and applies a random-code coding theorem to obtain explicit error and success exponents. Its central resu

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the LRC approximates real continuous-noise channels rests on assuming that the shape of the log-likelihood-ratio density near zero controls the sorted reliability values across the meaningful initial range; the paper proves flatness only in a small shrinking interval around zero and cites a standard order-statistics result to make that bridge without quantified scaling conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Exact ML decoding on the LRC is fully characterized: soft-decision decoding guesses noise by increasing logistic weight, hard-decision decoding by Hamming weight, and neither guessing order depends on the noise parameter β.
Below capacity, the error probability decays exponentially with closed-form, computable exponents for both decoders; above capacity, the success probability decays exponentially as well.
Soft-decision decoding strictly outperforms hard-decision decoding across the rate range: better error exponents, better success exponents, larger capacity, and a later critical-rate transition.
The critical-rate transition, where the error exponent changes from linear to strictly convex, receives an intuitive decoder-level interpretation: below it errors come from atypically early spurious guesses, above it from atypically unlikely noise effects.
Matching the LRC to a BSC by equal average guesswork gives a heuristic mapping from β to bit-flip probability, showing how much softer soft information makes a channel look.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the LRC approximation holds for continuous-noise channels, then the practical performance of ORBGRAND on such channels becomes a corollary of exact ML optimality on the LRC, and the LRC exponents provide a benchmark for how much performance is lost by approximate soft-decision algorithms.
The paper's Rényi-entropy ordering argument is not obviously LRC-specific: any channel whose posterior noise distribution is majorized by its prior should show the same strict ordering of soft- versus hard-decision exponents. Constructing another discrete channel with that majorization property and checking the ordering would be a direct test.
The logistic-weight viewpoint suggests that code design for soft decisions should maximize minimum logistic weight rather than Hamming distance; one could test this by building small LRC codes and comparing ML block-error rates.
The BSC-vs-LRC parameter mapping is a heuristic tied to one Rényi order; because the rate functions have different curvature, no single-parameter map from β to p can match exponents at all rates, so a multi-order comparison would give a sharper equivalence.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The LRC is a genuinely new object and the internal analysis is the real contribution. The decoder characterizations in Theorems 9-10 are clean, the guesswork LDPs are serious mathematics, and the exponent ordering results follow in a well-structured way. Appendix A, where the hard-decision sCGF is derived via saddle-point bounds on elementary symmetric polynomials, is particularly careful. I'd trust these results conditional on checking the details; the Rényi entropy ordering and the critical-rate argument are coherent. The paper also doesn't lean improperly on the authors' own GRAND/guesswork framework: those prior results are published, parameter-free, and applied rather than assumed.

The soft spot is Section III-A, and it is not minor. Theorem 5 proves local flatness of the LLR density only on a window of size O(sigma^{-3/2}), while the order-statistic quantiles that matter for a length-n block sit at scale Theta(1/sigma). That window is asymptotically negligible relative to the quantile range, so the leap to "the sorted reliabilities are asymptotically linear" via a generic order-statistics citation is unsupported. Worse, the curvature correction at the quantile scale is O(1) relative to the linear term, not o(1); for any fixed fraction of bits, the approximation does not improve as sigma grows. So the motivating claim in the abstract is not just unproven; the scaling evidence points the other way. The internal LRC analysis survives this, because it never needs the approximation, but the paper as advertised needs either a real theorem with the right scaling or a much more modest motivational statement.

Minor remarks: the beta comparison values in Fig. 7 are free parameters and should be stated; no code or formal verification is provided, which is normal for this kind of theory paper.

Bottom line: this deserves serious referee time. The channel itself and the exact exponents are worth having in the literature, but the approximation claim should be heavily revised or removed before publication. I'd raise the Section III-A issue explicitly in review and ask the authors to either prove a quantile-scale result or narrow the claim. The rest of the paper can go through with standard checking.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the linear reliability channel (LRC), a discrete soft-decision channel in which the bit reliabilities are exactly linear under a uniformly random permutation. It claims that the LRC approximates a general class of continuous-noise channels at high noise variance, and it analyzes maximum-likelihood decoding in the LRC. The main technical results are explicit GRAND-based ML decoders (Theorems 9 and 10), large deviation principles for the guesswork of the soft- and hard-decision noise processes (Theorems 11, 12, and 15), and consequent error and success exponents for random-code ensembles (Theorem 18 applied to the LRC, with ordering results in Propositions 19-20). The proofs are detailed, including a long appendix for the hard-decision scaled cumulant generating function and for the ordering of critical rates.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it provides one of the first discrete soft-decision channel models for which the soft- and hard-decision ML decoders and their error/success exponents can be analyzed explicitly, and it gives a quantitative comparison of soft versus hard decision. The use of published guesswork/GRAND tools is appropriate and not circular: the LRC-specific calculations are new derivations against that framework. The paper also contains substantial technical work in the form of the hard-decision sCGF and the critical-rate ordering proof. However, the advertised approximation of continuous-noise channels by the LRC is not established as stated; this weakens the motivational claim, although the internal LRC analysis is largely independent of that approximation.

major comments (1)

[Section V-B, Proposition 17] The proof that Lambda'_Z(alpha) in (0, ln 2) is incomplete. The implication '0<Lambda_Z(alpha)<alpha ln2 for alpha>0, and hence Lambda'_Z(alpha)<ln2' is not valid for an arbitrary convex function with Lambda_Z(0)=0; a strictly convex function such as f(alpha)=a alpha^2+b alpha with a+b<ln2 can have f'(1)>ln2. This inference is used in Proposition 19 to locate the critical rates. The claim may be true for the specific sCGFs, but a direct proof is needed, or the argument should be restricted to alpha=1 where Appendix B already gives an explicit formula.

minor comments (4)

[Section III-A, Assumption 4] The Laplace and uniform distributions are listed as examples satisfying Assumption 4, but neither is strictly log-concave and C^4; the Laplace density is not C^1 at 0. The assumption covers normal and logistic but not the stated examples. Please correct the statement or relax the assumption.
[Throughout] There are many mislabeled cross-references: 'Theorem 4' for Assumption 4, 'Theorem 6' for Lemma 6, and several 'Theorem 25'-'Theorem 33' for the corresponding lemmas in the appendices. Please renumber consistently.
[Definition 1 and proof of Lemma 2] The notation w_tau(z)=sum_{i: tau(z)_i=1} i is ambiguous because tau is a permutation of [n], not a map on vectors. Please define the action explicitly, e.g., w_tau(z)=sum_{i:z_{tau(i)}=1} i or the equivalent.
[Section II] The text says there are n(n+1)/2 logistic-weight types; there are n(n+1)/2+1 possible weights (from 0 to n(n+1)/2). Also, in Section V-A 'wieldy' should be 'unwieldy'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LRC analysis is self-contained given its channel definition; the only external claim (LRC approximates continuous-noise channels) is under-supported but not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations (Theorems 9-20) all operate within the LRC definition. The channel is specified by Eqs. (1)-(2); Lemmas 2-3 derive the exact soft- and hard-decision noise PMFs from that specification; Theorems 11-12 compute the guesswork sCGFs by direct limiting arguments (Riemann sums and saddle-point/Laplace methods); and Theorem 18 from [17] is an independently published large-deviations coding theorem that converts guesswork LDPs into error/success exponents. None of these steps fits a parameter to a target quantity and then re-predicts it as a discovery. The self-citations to [16] and [17] are published, parameter-free mathematical results with assumptions stated independently of the LRC, so they constitute real evidence under the review rules rather than circular support. The only point at which an external channel is invoked is the approximation claim in Section III-A. There, Theorem 5 proves local flatness of the LLR density in an interval of size O(sigma^{-3/2}), and the paper then asserts, via a generic citation to [29], that this implies the sorted reliabilities are approximately linear. The manuscript itself attempts to preempt the objection in the paragraph after Theorem 5: 'The fact that Theorem 5 requires that epsilon goes to 0 does not imply that the sorted reliabilities are only linearly increasing over a range which is negligible...' This is where the support is missing: the relevant quantile range for fixed fractions of bits is at l = Theta(1/sigma), far outside the epsilon interval, and the order-statistics bridge is not quantified. That is a mathematical/correctness gap, not a circularity: the LRC's internal analysis does not rely on the approximation theorem, and the approximation is not obtained by defining the LRC in terms of a fitted quantity from the continuous channel. Therefore no 'Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction' reduction or renamed-prediction step is present, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The LRC channel parameter beta is an input, not fitted. The comparison beta values in Fig. 7 are matching choices for a heuristic BSC comparison. No new physical entities, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The channel model and the logistic weight are mathematical definitions rather than invented empirical entities.

free parameters (1)

beta comparison values in Fig. 7 = not specified exactly; chosen to match H_{1/2} of a BSC
The heuristic BSC comparison in Section VI and Fig. 7 matches the LRC to a BSC by equal average guesswork H_{1/2}. This is a comparison choice, not a fitted parameter in the LRC definition or in the main theorems.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 4: noise density is f_N(x)=(1/sigma) f_0(x/sigma) with f_0 even, strictly log-concave, and C^4.
Used in Theorem 5 to claim the LRC approximates continuous-noise channels at high variance. It excludes many realistic noise models and the theorem's conclusion is only local.
domain assumption Random codebook: the code is drawn uniformly at random and rate R is fixed.
The error and success exponents in Section VI rest on the random-coding theorem from [17], which assumes a uniformly random codebook.
standard math The large-deviations guesswork framework and the GRAND random-coding exponent theorem from [16] and [17] are correct.
Theorems 11, 12, 15, and 18 depend on this external framework; the paper does not re-derive it, only applies it.
domain assumption A standard order-statistics result [29] connects a locally linear reliability CDF to linearly increasing sorted reliabilities over a block.
Invoked in Section III-A without a precise statement of the joint scaling of block length and noise variance. This is the least supported load-bearing step in the approximation claim.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Linear Reliability Channel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VLALCOE2

@misc{pith2026250908079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Linear Reliability Channel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VLALCOE2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08079}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce and analyze a discrete soft-decision channel called the linear reliability channel (LRC) in which the soft information is the rank ordering of the received symbol reliabilities. We prove that the LRC is an appropriate approximation to a general class of discrete modulation, continuous noise channels when the noise variance is high. The central feature of the LRC is that its combinatorial nature allows for an extensive mathematical analysis of the channel and its corresponding hard- and soft-decision maximum likelihood (ML) decoders. In particular, we establish explicit error exponents for ML decoding in the LRC when using random codes under both hard- and soft-decision decoding. This analysis allows for a direct, quantitative evaluation of the relative advantage of soft-decision decoding. The discrete geometry of the LRC is distinct from that of the BSC, which is characterized by the Hamming weight, offering a new perspective on code construction for soft-decision settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08079 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Empirical sample of n = 218 reliabilities, sorted in increasing order, for noise following the normal and logistic distributions with mean 0 and variance σ 2 . The horizontal axis is normalized by n. The red dotted lines are hand-picked linear approximations showing that the sorted reliabilities are initially approximately linear increasing. For both of these noise distributions, the linear approximation is better o… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Empirical sample of n = 218 reliabilities, sorted in increasing order, for noise following the Laplace distributions with mean 0 and variance σ 2 . The horizontal axis is normalized by n. The red dotted lines are hand-picked linear approximations showing that the sorted reliabilities are initially approximately linear increasing. The Laplace distribution is notable for inducing reliabilities which are constant beyon… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison between Bridges’ approximation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Functions related to the LDPs (in bits) for the hard-decision optimal guesswork process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Error exponents ϵ(R) (solid) and success exponents s(R) (dashed) for soft- and hard-decision ML decoding in the LRC. Circles mark the critical rate Rcr at which ϵ(R) transitions from being linear to strictly convex. VI. ERROR EXPONENTS FOR HARD- AND SOFT-DECISION DECOD…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison between rate functions and error exponents for the BSC (solid lines) and the LRC (dotted lines). For simplicity, the error and success [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Gallager,Principles of Digital Communication

R. Gallager,Principles of Digital Communication. Cam- bridge University Press, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

Ordered reliability bits guessing random additive noise decoding,

K. R. Duffy, W. An, and M. M´edard, “Ordered reliability bits guessing random additive noise decoding,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 70, pp. 4528–4542, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

ORBGRAND is almost capacity-achieving,

M. Liu, Y . Wei, Z. Chen, and W. Zhang, “ORBGRAND is almost capacity-achieving,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2830–2840, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

High-throughput and energy-efficient VLSI architecture for ordered reliability bits GRAND,

S. M. Abbas, T. Tonnellier, F. Ercan, M. Jalaleddine, and W. J. Gross, “High-throughput and energy-efficient VLSI architecture for ordered reliability bits GRAND,” IEEE Trans. VLSI Syst., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 681–693, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

A fixed latency ORBGRAND decoder archi- tecture with LUT-aided error-pattern scheduling,

C. Condo, “A fixed latency ORBGRAND decoder archi- tecture with LUT-aided error-pattern scheduling,”IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2203–2211, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Efficient OR- BGRAND implementation with parallel noise sequence generation,

C. Ji, X. You, C. Zhang, and C. Studer, “Efficient OR- BGRAND implementation with parallel noise sequence generation,”IEEE Trans. VLSI Syst., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 435–448, 2025

work page 2025
[7]

A low-latency and area-efficient ORBGRAND decoder for polar codes,

J. Xiao, Y . Zhou, S. Song, and Z. Wang, “A low-latency and area-efficient ORBGRAND decoder for polar codes,” inProc. IEEE Inf. Commun. Technol. Conf., IEEE, 2023, pp. 10–15

work page 2023
[8]

A 15 sub-0.8-pJ/bit universal soft-detection decoder using ORBGRAND,

A. Riaz, A. Yasar, F. Ercan, W. An, J. Ngo, K. Galligan, M. M ´edard, K. R. Duffy, and R. T. Yazicigil, “A 15 sub-0.8-pJ/bit universal soft-detection decoder using ORBGRAND,”IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 7, no. 60, pp. 2645–2659, 2025

work page 2025

Show all 35 references

[9]

Fine-tuning ORB- GRAND with very few channel soft values

L. Wan, H. Yin, and W. Zhang. “Fine-tuning ORB- GRAND with very few channel soft values.” arXiv: 2507.08696[cs.IT]

arXiv
[10]

Approaching maximum like- lihood decoding performance via reshuffling ORB- GRAND,

L. Wan and W. Zhang, “Approaching maximum like- lihood decoding performance via reshuffling ORB- GRAND,” inProc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Inf. Theory, 2024, pp. 31–36

2024
[11]

ORBGRAND: Achievable rate for general bit channels and application in bicm,

Z. Li and W. Zhang, “ORBGRAND: Achievable rate for general bit channels and application in bicm,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Pers., Indoor and Mobile Radio Commun., 2024, pp. 1–7

2024
[12]

Large deviations of probability rank,

E. Arikan, “Large deviations of probability rank,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Inf. Theory, 2000, p. 27

2000
[13]

Guesswork and entropy,

D. Malone and W. G. Sullivan, “Guesswork and entropy,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 525–526, 2004

2004
[14]

R ´enyi entropy, guess- work moments, and large deviations,

C.-E. Pfister and W. G. Sullivan, “R ´enyi entropy, guess- work moments, and large deviations,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 2794–2800, 2004

2004
[15]

Guessing revisited: A large deviations approach,

M. K. Hanawal and R. Sundaresan, “Guessing revisited: A large deviations approach,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 70–78, 2010

2010
[16]

Guesswork, large deviations, and shannon entropy,

M. M. Christiansen and K. R. Duffy, “Guesswork, large deviations, and shannon entropy,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 796–802, 2012

2012
[17]

Capacity-achieving guessing random additive noise decoding,

K. R. Duffy, J. Li, and M. M ´edard, “Capacity-achieving guessing random additive noise decoding,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 4023–4040, 2019

2019
[18]

Partitions into distinct parts with bounded largest part,

W. Bridges, “Partitions into distinct parts with bounded largest part,”Research in Number Theory, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 40, 2020

2020
[19]

Guessing and entropy,

J. L. Massey, “Guessing and entropy,” inProc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Inf. Theory, 1994, p. 204

1994
[20]

An inequality on guessing and its application to sequential decoding,

E. Arikan, “An inequality on guessing and its application to sequential decoding,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 99–105, 1996

1996
[21]

The large deviation approach to statistical mechanics,

H. Touchette, “The large deviation approach to statistical mechanics,”Physics Reports, vol. 478, no. 1-3, pp. 1–69, 2009

2009
[22]

Dembo and O

A. Dembo and O. Zeitouni,Large Deviations Techniques and Applications(Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability). Springer, 2009

2009
[23]

S. S. Varadhan,Large Deviations and Applications. SIAM, 1984

1984
[24]

Deuschel and D

J.-D. Deuschel and D. W. Stroock,Large Deviations. American Mathematical Soc., 2001, vol. 342

2001
[25]

R. G. Gallager,Information Theory and Reliable Com- munication. Springer, 1968

1968
[26]

Lower bounds to error probability for coding on discrete memoryless channels,

C. E. Shannon, R. G. Gallager, and E. R. Berlekamp, “Lower bounds to error probability for coding on discrete memoryless channels,”Information and Control, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 65–103, 1967

1967
[27]

The performance of block codes,

E. Berlekamp, “The performance of block codes,”No- tices of the AMS, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2002

2002
[28]

A simple derivation of the coding theorem and some applications,

R. Gallager, “A simple derivation of the coding theorem and some applications,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 1965

1965
[29]

H. A. David and H. N. Nagaraja,Order Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, 2004

2004
[30]

G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. P ´olya,Inequalities. Cambridge University Press, 1952

1952
[31]

The method of types,

I. Csisz ´ar, “The method of types,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2505–2523, 1998

1998
[32]

Some simple inequalities satisfied by convex functions,

G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. P ´olya, “Some simple inequalities satisfied by convex functions,”Mes- senger Math., vol. 58, pp. 145–152, 1929

1929
[33]

Takayama,Mathematical Economics

A. Takayama,Mathematical Economics. Cambridge University Press, 1985

1985
[34]

The moment problem for unimodal distributions,

N. L. Johnson and C. A. Rogers, “The moment problem for unimodal distributions,”The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 22, pp. 433–439, 3 1951

1951
[35]

Flajolet and R

P. Flajolet and R. Sedgewick,Analytic Combinatorics. Cambridge University Press, 2009. APPENDIXA PROOF OF THE SCGFFORHARD-DECISIONGUESSWORK The key ingredient in the proof of Theorem 12 is the asymptotic exponential growth rate of the elementary symmetric polynomials an k (β)....

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Gallager,Principles of Digital Communication

R. Gallager,Principles of Digital Communication. Cam- bridge University Press, 2008

work page 2008

[2] [2]

Ordered reliability bits guessing random additive noise decoding,

K. R. Duffy, W. An, and M. M´edard, “Ordered reliability bits guessing random additive noise decoding,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 70, pp. 4528–4542, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

ORBGRAND is almost capacity-achieving,

M. Liu, Y . Wei, Z. Chen, and W. Zhang, “ORBGRAND is almost capacity-achieving,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2830–2840, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

High-throughput and energy-efficient VLSI architecture for ordered reliability bits GRAND,

S. M. Abbas, T. Tonnellier, F. Ercan, M. Jalaleddine, and W. J. Gross, “High-throughput and energy-efficient VLSI architecture for ordered reliability bits GRAND,” IEEE Trans. VLSI Syst., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 681–693, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

A fixed latency ORBGRAND decoder archi- tecture with LUT-aided error-pattern scheduling,

C. Condo, “A fixed latency ORBGRAND decoder archi- tecture with LUT-aided error-pattern scheduling,”IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2203–2211, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Efficient OR- BGRAND implementation with parallel noise sequence generation,

C. Ji, X. You, C. Zhang, and C. Studer, “Efficient OR- BGRAND implementation with parallel noise sequence generation,”IEEE Trans. VLSI Syst., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 435–448, 2025

work page 2025

[7] [7]

A low-latency and area-efficient ORBGRAND decoder for polar codes,

J. Xiao, Y . Zhou, S. Song, and Z. Wang, “A low-latency and area-efficient ORBGRAND decoder for polar codes,” inProc. IEEE Inf. Commun. Technol. Conf., IEEE, 2023, pp. 10–15

work page 2023

[8] [8]

A 15 sub-0.8-pJ/bit universal soft-detection decoder using ORBGRAND,

A. Riaz, A. Yasar, F. Ercan, W. An, J. Ngo, K. Galligan, M. M ´edard, K. R. Duffy, and R. T. Yazicigil, “A 15 sub-0.8-pJ/bit universal soft-detection decoder using ORBGRAND,”IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 7, no. 60, pp. 2645–2659, 2025

work page 2025